36 Comments

I am not trying to be mean here to Rabbi Shmuley. But I think it is amazing how Dr. Brown can be such great friends with someone who called him a hypocrite and said he was patronizing everyone. I would have a little trouble separating the fact that he said it in a debate setting and that he really doesn’t think that about me as a friend and a person. I just don’t know how to do that….so thank God that He does’t call me to debate! :0)

Just watched the “debate”, and I am not sure how to respond. Your opponent dominated the talk by his assumptive soapbox speechmaking take charge manner and an alike related point of view established of his insistence of aggressivly gerrymandering the debate forum policy boundaries [especially during the final sections of the forum]. The immediate audience did not accept this, but, it seems the USA already has according to S. Dr. Brown worked to correct this assumptive posture.

This outcome seemed to be the case primarily because of very poor moderation of the debate itself [where the moderator did not assertively intervene in a needed manner to balance the Q & A sections, as they were happening, as a seasoned TV network anchorman in such a role might have]. It is clear that the rules were not respected, because of the Rabbi’s own sense of social outrage. He mentioned having a counselor’s sensibilities toward adults practicing homosexuality as holding more than having Torah sensibilities, and ran with that.

Michael Brown was very accurate in determining that folks on hand, scripture, and related research topic policy groups did not share the Rabbi’s assumptions: where the Rabbi also simply could not process that such societal anomalies as 80 million Evangelicals were going to reach homosexuals with any relevant or commiserate Message that composed a New Testament Gospel Message, regardless of any known or cited Biblical reference to morality and sexual practices. Does the Rabbi represent a law unto himself?

According to the Rabbi, the die was already cast, and there is no going back, becase of adult consentual choice (whatever the cast of sin). Christianity, if standing against homosexuality, was going to lose any respect and relevance among the democratic masses for its claims and heart accordingly. This position reminded me of what Jesus said about his generation being like children calling to one another in the marketplace: as representing looking to the wrong source for guidance.

This is not to say that Shmuley even responded to what he was requested to at all. [But then, as mentioned, this was never really a debate by its poor management and independent of debating particpants topical pursuits]. It was not a “debate”, it was not even a discussion, it almost achieved a comparison of positions. This was in a climate of unacceptance of the topic itself, with one participant predeciding it was the stuff to be stirred up as related to crazymaking (of an alike famous Scopes [Monkey] Trial substance in the making): as far as anyone of educational or intellectual scruples comprehending a largly held already decided inevitable societal change of acceptance of the topic as normal. How do Evangelicals [view evolution, and how do they] view homosexuality may be of a similar importance in forming “camps” rather than one truly overcoming or respectfully challenging another’s position. Oh, for a true moderator to stay on task!

M. Brown made the mistake of being reasonable, when he did not readily discern that it was not a reasonable and respectful forum from the segment just before Q & A responses forward. It does not hurt a Christian witness, or Messianic witness to occasionally state the character of the opponent’s approach to the subject at hand, certainly Jesus did this often. But, to keep a supposed friendship intact, if one labled the character of a religious leader supporting adult consentual sex, one might strain that relationship indeed.

The laws, rules, and unspoken rules of culture have already asserted a fast-paced, marketplace driven, club dance environment, and media normalized approach to the subject–where the guise of equal rights and a verbally equated political “civil rights entitlement” ideation have pulled the wool over the public eye. That eye has its cornia stuck glued to the New TV Standard screen, and enjoys the dazzling colors and bokeh, with no other standards in view.

Help us out in the future when setting up a debate by going back a few years to another season of reason, with an evening radio show approach for podcast and MP3 broadcast, with invited commentators to add analysis after the fact, and, above all, an active and respected forum omniscent moderator.

Did I hear Rabbi Boteach say, that what his Torah says is an abomination to the Lord, contrary to the new age of enlightenment, is basically OK with God, because God would rather man were not alone? Where does Moses ever say, “But, if you can’t keep God’s law of not lying with another man, or, woman, it’s alright, God didn’t really mean it that way?” It seems his major beef is with Christians, not the homosexual relationship and it’s being foistered on children as a “natural” alternative. So, to give in to any lust of the flesh, alcoholism, drug abuse, pornography, adultery; these must be ok with God too. I would have to say, that when God said, “It is not good for man to be alone”, that it was because there was only “one” man at the time He said it. And, since He made a “help meet” in the likeness of woman, I think He answered the statement Himself. He didn’t create another man and then a woman and tell Adam, “pick one”.

Yes, his problem is with Christianity and that’s what he came to debate. His remarks were way off the subject. Not to mention the fact that he went out of his way to paint an untruth, by constantly referring to beastiality and homosexuality in the same sentence, as coming from the mouth of Dr. Brown, rather than himself.

He came to cast apersion on Christians. In that he succeeded. As far as the debate, he failed miserably in unholding God’s word as outlined in both the Torah and the New Testament.

The debate was great Dr. Brown. I think both sides did a great job. I think the problem however was that each side was debating a different issue. Dr. Brown spoke out against homosexual agendas and activism and Rabbi Shmuley seemed to think that was not the mainstream and was more concerned with how homosexuals had been rejected by Christians, as well as other people of faith.

I think the main point is that the rabbi does not understand the Gospel as others have stated, but they too don’t seem to understand the legalistic nature of Orthodox Judaism, I use the phrase “legalistic” here in more of a positive connotation. He looks at the Torah as Laws from G-D that man can interpet and live by and sees that we are not perfect and therefore views, whether one thinks him to be in error or not, G-D as being understanding if we cannot keep all the Law. As well I think there’s another issue close to home, if I remember correctly, Rabbi Shmuley has a gay, practicing Orthodox Jewish brother and I think his approach to the homosexual community is more akin to the approach he has had within his own family.

But in the end I liked the debate. It was just that, some seemed not to like the fact that it wasn’t all plesantries, but then it would have merely been a discussion and not a debate.

I really thought the questions from the audience was brilliant. One man asked Shmuley would God approve of homosexual behavior in the Holy Temple? (Of course is Christians are now the temple of the living God) Shmuley could not give a direct answrr to that.Danced around it. Another lad pinned Shmuley perfectly. Shmuley serves men and fears men more then he fears the Lord.

If Shmuley hears Dr. Brown and the Lord with his heart instead of his mind, he would be saved by now. Imagine a witness of Christ he would be.

Hey Doc, I have a Question that perhaps you might be able to relay to Shmuley (If you believe it warrents such an action.) This is reguarding Jesus not taking a wife (a fact of Jesus’ Life that some Practicing Jews would label as sin) When we look at the story of Sodom and Gamorrah and read later in other texts (Joel I believe), we see that One reason Soddom and gammoroah were punished is because they went after strange flesh. Now, knowing that God did not impregnate Mary through a sexual act but rather by a supernatural act (so that God is not charged with Going after strange flesh)Why would Jesus (God Incarnate) approach Strange flesh for the purpose of procreation when the afore mentioned sin in soddom and gammorroha produced what would would be God (Jesus’) wrath? Also did God cause Jeramiah to sin but disallowing him from having a wife?)

Cliff I’m glad you bought up that question that Shmuley asked Dr Brown about How come Jesus didn’t take on a wife. Dr Brown respond was wellJesus was an exception. Shmuley wents nuts with that answer, Oh he said an exception. Shmuley was saying a lot more negative to that respond but I forgot.

Here is my point…Dr brown you should of said instead of Jesus was an exception about not getting married, you should of said… Jesus did come to earth to get married. To marry the church. Church being the bride, groom being the groom.

Revelation 19:5-9
And a voice came from the throne, saying, “Give praise to our God, all you His bond-servants, you who fear Him, the small and the great.” And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude and as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns. Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready.” And it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. And he said to me, “Write, ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God”

There is difference between an abominable act (sexual intercourse with member of the same sex, an abominable animal (let’s say a shrimp). From my not perfect perspective I think Leviticus states it that way and Mr. Shmuley was trying to compare those things.

Great and gracious words brother Brown//you even tried to witness to the Rabbi who wouldnt comment//I wonder if you could even have said..dear Rabbi//was I sinning by converting to Christ and indeed do choose to worship as the early Jewish believers did on Sunday now>
Sodom&Gomorrah never came up//yes Ezekial says that they were also fat&full without need of work,but the gay effort to seduce the two men coming to Lots house were ineed after gay sex.God couldnt get Lot out fast enough//so we know He meant business.When Jesus spoke with anger that it would have been better for child abusers to have a stone hung around their neck and cast into the sea/I have to really wonder if He also had in mind others of gay persuasion.

Yes indeed –gay is the new black –and will gain sadly more.In my Canada its a forgone conclusion there///a church and a ministry both lost their tax donation status over the gay issue.
I am proud that DrBrown broached this terrible problem even if it wasnt respected by many//maybe some did.May God bless your continued apologetic efforts.In Christ.Bob Funk Tegucigalpa Honduras

Just saw the “debate”, it was a disappointing one. Cf what everyone else commented above (excpeting christopher). The only thing that really came out of it, to my mind, was this:

(1) Dr Brown: Gay agenda needs to be addressed

(2) Rabbi: why this obsession with homosexuality? [then an anecdote about counselling gay men to either remain celibate or to obey the other 611 mitvot notwithstanding a gay lifestyle (i.e. passively condoning homosexual lifestyle). And then it got into questions of accepting and abrogating certain parts of the Torah…]

(3) Dr Brown: Yes we address the other things too, INCLUDING the gay rights agenda.

(4) And then it turned into a mudslinging match as to whether bestiality and incest can be compared to homosexual practices; and something about political effectiveness 80 million people or something – IT just got out of control.

and that was it.

Really there can be no compromise on the topic of the debate. It HAS to be a good one; and it has to be a contentious one where there are legitimate differences in opinion between the two schools of thought (orthodox vs Jesus followers). In this one, it was more of Rabbi’s personal views vs. Xianity’s views on things.

Agreed, the debate was a shambles. Rabbi Shmuley suggests a topic he didn’t really come to debate, and Dr Brown begins the debate by denying the very question the debate proposed. Rabbi Shmuley scored some points with his argument that evangelicals have gotten so focused on the gay agenda that they seem to have lost their focus on what the church should be doing – being a light in the community.

Dr Brown stood the stereotypical evangelical line, which was a big seller to the crowd at hand. However, I think Dr Brown missed the point made so effect by the young homosexual man and reinforced by Rabbi Shmuley – the young man doesn’t attend church anywhere because he does not feel welcome.

Someone posted elsewhere “Doesn’t the homosexual community understand that we love them?” No, they don’t, because all too often Christians are very loud in their rhetoric that God hates homosexuality and those practicing it are bound for hell, while being very quiet in expressing their love and compassion for those caught in the homosexual lifestyle. Unfortunately, that often tends to be the case with most fundamentalists about any sin issue – except those in their own lives.

I am not gay, nor do I agree with or support or encourage anyone to live a homosexual lifestyle. I hurt for those who hurt, whatever their addiction, and I pray for God to meet them where they are and heal them.

So what do I think Yeshua would have done? I think he would have knelt down in the dust and started writing something, then looked up and said “Whoever is without sin, let him or her cast the first stone.” Yeshua went to where the sinners were and introduced Himself to them and shared the love of the Father. You will never find a single instance in which He addressed the sinner’s sin before He addressed the sinner’s need.

Quite frankly, this debate was an Epic Fail. Dr Brown did not convince anyone to have a different mindset, because the majority of the audience already agreed with everything he said. And Rabbi Shmuley didn’t convince anyone because no one was really listening to anything he said.

Showing love to a homosexual is not going to change their life style. Most homosexuals are more loving then most people, sadly to say even more then some Christians. I know gay people, I show love and kindness to them, that doesn’t change their wanting not to be gay. All us Christians can do is speak the truth about the word of God to them.

I have an Aunt who is a nun. One time in conversation with her she said..My best friend is a lesbian. I told her… Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. My Aunt said… That is a misinterpretation. Then her brother (my uncle) chimed in who by the way was a priest. He said God said in His word that God has made all things good. I said that isn’t good. I had to be quiet because my Mom gets mad when I talk “religion” and it starts fireworks.
My Aunt by the way literally told me…She hates born again Christians. Plus she calls God a she.

You know the Lord said that narrow is the path to life, and wide is the path to destruction.

All we can do is speak the truth and pray for them. They believe what they are doing is right. They do not want anyone stopping them from living this way.

I do agree with Mike above in saying that it does seem that the audience was primarily made up of people who are staunchly on the evangelical side of the issue, rather than say a more mixed audience, although if I recall right, the young man who self-identified as a homosexual responded when asked by the rabbi if he went to church by saying that he didn’t attend church because he was too busy. I think that shows that while he left church probably because he felt uncomfortable (remember he said he was raised in an independent Baptist church), he could probably attend one if he wanted, I mean Charlotte is a big area, I’m sure there are some ‘gay-friendly’ churches, which I don’t agree with, but if he wanted to find a religious service that was welcoming to him, I’m sure in a large city like that, he could find one if he desired, but as he said he doesn’t attend church because he is too busy.

But I do think the debate kind of loverlooked its topic. I still thought it was great, getting to see the discussions, I just think it was a little too heated, which is funny, cause the debates I’ve seen between Dr. Brown and Rabbi Boteach were about Yeshua, which I figured would have been more heated. But I still liked it. I felt myself on the side of Rabbi Boteach during a lot of the questioning, just cause it seemed like the audience was totally against and dare I say agast at his responses. I’m a believer through and through, and I pray and love homosexuals, althought I thoroughly disagree with their lifestyle, but the Jew in me was like man, leave him alone. Dr. Brown’s questions to him were great and right on, but I honestly didn’t understand some of what the audience asked. I really liked when Dr. Brown assured the young man that if anyone wanted to hurt him they’d have to get through him first, and I feel that it something important to affirm to the LGBT community, that not only are we against them being physically assaulted, but we will protect them from it as well, while remaining completely uncompromised in our stance with regards to the preaching of the Good News of Yeshua.

Overall, it was still a great debate, it got off track, but to be honest, I’ve never seen a debate that stayed on the track.

I share the sentiments of most everyone else that the debate didn’t turn out particularly well. Rabbi Shmuley seems to just like listening to the sound of his own voice, the way he argues, and consistently talks over Dr. Brown. If I were Dr. Brown, I see no problem with sternly and loudly saying to Shmuley, “Sir, I will not be talked over when I’m trying to make a point. Now, please, be quiet until I’m done speaking.”

That being said, the one thing I think Dr. Brown could have answered better was when Shmuley asked why Jesus was not married. Now, I know it’s difficult to give an answer on the fly like this, especially when you’re attacked with it by surprise, so I don’t fault Dr. Brown for being unprepared for that.

While marriage during the time of Jesus would have been “normal”, it was by no means obligatory, and rabbinic literature itself even gives rules for exceptions (to rules that were themselves non-binding, mind you): Postponement of marriage was allowed for students of Torah so they could concentrate on their studies and be free of having to support a wife. There is even the case of Simeon Ben Azzai, who never married. He himself said that a man who doesn’t marry is like one who shed blood and diminished the likeness of God, but when a colleague of his said he was better at preaching than practicing, he replied “What shall I do? My soul is enamored of the Torah; the population of the world can be kept up by others (b. Yeham. 63b).”

Philo also describes the Therapeutae, a Jewish sect composed of both men and women who were celibate. Not to mention the Essenes/Qumranites (if they are indeed the same group).

But even more importantly, prophetic figures were “allowed” or even “expected” to be celibate. The prophet Jeremiah was celibate as a command from God, a sign of prophetic significance concerning the destruction of life to sinful Judah (Jer 16:1-4).

John the Baptist was another and possibly even Elijah, as his prototype. John, after all, was raised in the wilderness, fed on locusts and wild honey and roamed the Jordan Valley and Judean wilderness and apparently had no fixed abode. Even more striking, when he was beheaded by Herod Antipas, it was his disciples who came and buried him, not a wife or any children, as would have been their sacred obligation had he had them.

And lastly, Moses was seen by later rabbinic tradition as having been celibate after God began to speak with him (b. Yabb. 87a is one example).

It seems based on this that Rabbi Shmuley doesn’t even know some of his own religious history. So yes, Dr. Brown was right generally speaking, it was a command that could be superseded in some circumstances (though I’d say it isn’t exclusive to Jesus, per the Jeremiah example). Jesus as a prophetic figure would have been practically expected to be celibate and indeed is “married” to the entire body of believers anyway.

Well, I thought it was a debate in that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach passionately argued as the voice of the present world, and Dr. Brown maintained the Biblical perspective. Not that R. Boteach agrees with homosexuality; but he’s trying to be pragmatic, as many today are. His points about gays being willing to marry, being willing to adopt were good because who hasn’t noticed that sometimes gays are more monogamous than straight people and could make gentler, more kind-hearted parents? Of course, the opposite can also be true! So it’s not because of sexual orientation. While I uphold marriage as between one man and one woman and forever will, I can see that the climate which contributed to the fall of this position in the minds of many today did not actually start with homosexuals.

Pornography is a huge contributor to all sexual aberration. The famous serial killer, Ted Bundy, stated before his execution that pornography was the number one factor in feeding his bizarre desires, especially magazines featuring violence and sex together. Porn not only feeds latent tendencies, it helps create new ones. Why is pornography legal? Because the obscenity laws were overturned. The obscenity laws were overturned in part by the efforts of the pioneers of Planned Parenthood — trafficking in birth control products was a violation of these laws, called Comstock Laws, so efforts were successful in getting rid of those. People have wanted to divorce sex from the often-inevitable result of procreation for centuries – the first condoms were made from sheep intestines. And there have always been some sound reasons for individual families to want to curb their birth rate. If both men and women were working all day in factories for a meager wage, how welcome would another child be when they could barely afford to keep food on the table? Those were the conditions of life for many New Yorkers when Margaret Sanger began her work. Can we trace any of this misery to the greed of factory owners who had to be forced by reforms to provide a decent wage? Most of Margaret Sanger’s earliest patients (she was a nurse) were desperately poor women who performed crude abortions on themselves.

At this point, pornography is protected under Free Speech provisos, but it is even more dangerous and graphic today and should be utterly repudiated by every soul who considers themselves a believer in the God of Israel. Let’s get to causes. Of course the ultimate cause is the devil who uses everything at his disposal to entrap and enslave mankind, and sexual temptation is one of his top-most effective tools. A person bothered by same-sex attraction is bombarded with images on television and in magazines and out on the streets, encouraging them in that direction. Now young people are being targetted to be pro-gay in schools. Of course Dr. Brown is right in that we have to address this. As a result of gay activism, these tendencies will continue to mushroom across America and the world, and it looks pretty dire from this point looking forward.

Of course Rabbi Boteach’s points are the points social conservatives hear all the time. Essentially saying, “What about you?” “Let’s look at your sins while you’re busy pointing the finger at someone else.” And love is not really abounding, let’s be honest. And we’re confusing “tolerance” with “love.” And we don’t want to be pelted with rotten tomatoes, figuratively, so we don’t take stands. But if we don’t take these unpopular stands today, we won’t have the privilege of taking them tomorrow, so all the more reason to be willing to get hit with rotten tomatoes, patiently holding the line. That is really love — to warn our fellowman, to not compromise or water down God’s standards, and to remind that there is nothing that can’t be overcome by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Revelation 22:14-20 (NIV)

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

The Lord has given us ample warning about the consequences of sexual immorality. I’ll tell you, I live by the consciousness that as a formerly-divorced committer of adultery, I will be celibate for the rest of my life. And I’ll tell you that I could be as tempted by sexual thoughts as any person – I’m not immune. But I know what it is to hold every thought captive, to nip things in the bud, so to speak, and I know that wherever you put your thoughts, your body will respond to that. And I know that it’s only by the power of His Holy Spirit that I can live this way, having victory over my flesh. That I struggled (and failed) for years until I surrendered and was baptized and felt the presence of His Spirit within the temple of my body. We can’t battle Satan without the power of the Holy Spirit. It’s impossible. We have to rest in the One who overcame; to humble ourselves before God, to repent fully and completely, and to feed on that which is holy. Garbage in, garbage out. Holiness within, Holiness without. It’s our choice and no one can make it for us. May we hold that line, may we be willing for the rejection of the world, and may we continue to point to the one whose power alone can heal and transform.

I enjoyed seeing this debate, and think Dr. Brown did an almost perfect presentation, very impressed with the favor of God working through him, miraculous even. I was very stunned and amazed that Mr. Shmuley Boteach, notice I didn’t call him a rabbi, because of what Messiah said, Mr. Shmuley was so deceived, and only thinks that some of the commands of the Lord are religious while others are solely moral, actually all are religious, and moral at the same time, some appear more focused to the Yah/Lord, and some more focus to other people, but both are connected with each other, if we Love the Lord, then we correctly deal with people, likewise if we love people, then we correctly love the Lord. Also I agree with brother Brown adoption shouldn’t be given to homosexual people, because there is to much of a probability that they could hurt the children, or course though other people may hurt their children, but just as brother Michael Brown said, we are supposed to consider all things, and all issues. Now I have noticed that sometimes the Lord can use circumstances that are not perfect, so it is also possible that children will not end up unrighteous if they are adopted by homosexuals.

Ruth, Debates normally adhere to set topic, boundaries, and time on task rules. I am still not convinced it was a debate. I had to read De. Brown’s summary of his statements in the VOice of Revolution on-line magazine to understand his strategy, and allow for dismissing the topic from the get go. I understood the Rabbi’s off topic tactics pretty quickly. The question remains, if the topic was not to be the topic, why not change the topic? As it was set to be, it was set to frame the Evangelical community a certain crazy way.

Jabez, great question! The reason we ended up with an imperfect title for the debate was we had about one week to get organized and get the word out, and we were not in agreement when the e-blasts were about to go out, so I agreed to use Shmuley’s proposed title. Otherwise, you’re right. We should have picked a different title and I certainly expect we will in future debates on this, God willing.

The heart of Shmuley’s argument seems to be that, the Admonition against homosexuality is not really based on the moral law of God, but rather is based on an arbitrary law on the order of not eating shrimp. That is it is a religious law. While God’s moral laws flow from His nature, His religious laws flow from some purpose (for example keeping Jewish people separate).

This was something you did not refute. Do you agree with this position, or do you believe that homosexuality does offend God’s moral nature?

Actually, there was nothing to refute, since the argument has no scriptural base, nor is it the position of Judaism. I simply exposed it as contrary to the Bible and without foundation. The very word “immorality” presupposes moral sin, yet my friend Rabbi Shmuley argued that sexual immorality (like fornication and consensual homosexual acts) were not moral violations. That being said, I did address the argument you mention over and again in the debate, namely, that homosexual sin was not in the category of ritual prohibitions designed to keep Israel separate.

Ooops, In re-reading these comments, I just realized I used the wrong word in comparison when I said, “Not to mention the fact that he went out of his way to paint an untruth, by constantly referring to beastiality and homosexuality in the same sentence, as coming from the mouth of Dr. Brown, rather than himself.”